Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare write, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: no immediate provider work/job submission, preservation of applied/prepared evidence or fallback to suggested, and different outcomes for scheduled preparation versus failed drafts. It still lacks permission or error details, but adds substantial behavioral value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and remains compact across four sentences. Some state-transition language is dense, but there is little obvious filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a stateful mutation with five parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description provides useful state outcomes and annotations cover safety, but it leaves parameter purpose, response shape, and error behavior under-explained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for five parameters. The description names expectedVersion and idempotencyKey but does not explain their meaning, and it says nothing about actionId, reason, or workspace. The schema supplies names, types, and patterns, but the description does not compensate for the missing semantic coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and object: 'Restore dismissed/archived work', and adds state outcomes. It is clear enough to distinguish this from dismiss_preparation_action, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or clarify 'work' as a preparation action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'Restore dismissed/archived work' and by state-specific notes about fresh suggestions and failed drafts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings such as dismiss_preparation_action or read_preparation_action.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.